What is the difference between a representative democracy and a republic?
I see posts often that state that we (USA) were not created to be a democracy (I think they mean Representative Democracy when this is said.)
I do not think people often have thought through what the difference really is, and how did our country change from a republic to a representative democracy, or have we made that change?
What are your thoughts about which we are, and what would be needed to be one or the other? Should we be one or the other or should we be a hybrid of the two?
Definitions:
May help in the discussion
Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Republic: a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
I do not think people often have thought through what the difference really is, and how did our country change from a republic to a representative democracy, or have we made that change?
What are your thoughts about which we are, and what would be needed to be one or the other? Should we be one or the other or should we be a hybrid of the two?
Definitions:
May help in the discussion
Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Republic: a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
So what's it going to be at this late juncture?
Cruz and Rubio quit duking each other join forces and do an in house counter revolution.
The Military upholds it's oath of office as a legal counter revolution
Blood in the streets.
Republic - The founders wanted a government whose business was the people Res Publica. They wanted to limit the power of the Federal government to control the people and forbade direct tax. Only the States would fund the Federal Government not the Citizens.
The central government was split into three separate powers to further limit the power of the Central government.
400+ Representatives of the people in the House. 100 of the States in a Senate formed a congress with the SOLE authority and power to make laws. A president who was to administrate and be commander in chief and a Justice of 9 individuals - elected for life to prevent outside influence - to Judge and resolve differences in the Laws of the Congress. At the insistence of Some a Bill of Constraints was added to further specify what the government may not do. (No Rights are granted in the Constitution, Rights come from the Supreme Being as per the Declaration of Independence and are self-evident)
All this was put into a constitution to control the government, that all branches swear to uphold.
At Washington's farewell address, written by James Madison, he warned about never allowing factions or parties.
Aaron Burr wanted power and played party politics. Jefferson formed a party to oppose the new party's power and that was the end of representative government by the people and the separation of powers.
Monarchy - The de facto current form of government of the USA - Government by Political Party. Since there are only two, there are only two voices - Rule by the royal couple Democrat and Republican party. There is no representation of the people other than specific reps of the Parties, which makes very little difference in what the party does . One or the other party always rules.
When one Party is in power across the various branches it joins the branches into one and there is no separation or balance of powers.
http://www.TheSocietyProject.org For the full history of where we went wrong and how to fix the problems by Constitutional Amendment Repeal and Repair (CARR)
Is there no shame anywhere?
To vote, until the women's suffrage movement, required that you were a land owner. That was the key to us being a republic and not a democracy. The privilege of voting was tied to land ownership, to being a stakeholder.
The third item, when we moved from Governor or legislator appointees to the electoral college that then voted for president. Think about this, the first time Obama was running, if the apontee system were still used the primary concern was the economy. What are the odds that half or more the appointee to the electoral college would have been economists. Now look at Obama's skill set on the economy and think, would he have had a chance? This too was a change from a republic form of election for the president to a democracy form of election.
Democracy became popular with the advent of socialism and is a stepping stone....
HOWEVER
try this one for size
The USA is both a representative democracy and a republic.
A representative democracy is any country which is democratic in form, with elected representatives passing laws, rather than the population as a whole (which is called direct democracy). A democracy features the following:
A government that comes into power through elections
Elections that are frequent, free, fair, and competitive
Guaranteed civil rights (the right to speak out, the right to assemble and petition, etc.)
Guaranteed political rights (the right to vote, the right to run for office)
A free press that it is independent of the government, and multiple sources of media information
Accountability to the voters (through elections, recall mechanisms, polls, etc.)
Government transparency (the government generally works in the open, and corruption is limited)
Horizontal accountability between branches of government (checks and balances)
Internally sovereign government (the government can act without an unelected force [like the military] preventing it from ruling)
Near-universal adult suffrage (almost all citizens of age are allowed to vote, regardless of race, religion, etc.)
* Rule of law (the government cannot violate the constitution or basic laws at will)
Based on this, the USA is clearly a democracy, and is, like almost all democracies (save the possible exception, Switzerland), representative.
As for a republic, there are two definitions. One says that a country whose head of state (the ceremonial leader who calls legislatures into session, signs bills into laws, and greets foreign dignitaries) is chosen individually, rather than inheriting the office by being related by blood to the last chief of state, is a republic. Under this definition, countries like China, Russia, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe are all republics: they have no king, queen, or emperor. Many former communist countries (like East Germany, a.k.a. the German Democratic Republic) called themselves republics.
A more restrictive definition of republic is embodied by this quote from the Oxford English Dictionary: "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch." By this definition, only democratic states can be republics, since only in democracies can supreme power really rest with the people. If one uses the second definition, then all democracies are either republics or constitutional monarchies. All other countries are some variant of authoritarianism/autocracy. Political scientists don't necessarily agree on which definition to use, but the US is a republic under either definition.
With the destruction of the Bill of Rights about the only two hopes left maybe three is Cruz and Rubio getting elected and enough Rinos in Congress rejected that's one. Military up holding it's oath of office that's two.
Out and out shooting revolution.,
I doubt you would find many with the stomach for it anymore
Learn how to say We serve the party comrade and stand in line for bread.
How can a leftist dictatorship do what the Constitution says and guarantee a Republic form of government?
A "republic" is not synonymous with a "republican form of government."
CLEARING THE RFOG - - -
. . .
“I firmly believe that the benevolent Creator designed the republican Form of Government for Man.”
- - - Statement of (14 April 1785), quoted in The Writings of Samuel Adams (1904) edited by Harry A. Cushing
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_A...
“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the Rights of mankind.”
- - - Thomas Jefferson
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_...
DEFINITION - - -
REPUBLICAN FORM - that form of government wherein the people directly exercise sovereignty, and are served -not ruled- by government (and its subject citizens). The sovereign people retain possession of all their endowed and inalienable rights, powers, and liberties, and no democratic majority can vote them away. The servant government exercises power to secure rights, and only by special delegation via consent, may it govern. Though not perfect, it is the best form, securing the maximum liberty and freedom to its sovereign people.
. . .
For proof in support of this definition, one needs to examine many court cases and statutes, because "someone" eradicated memory of this from the people. It took over 100 years and a fortune.
Suffice to say, the source of the republican form is the Declaration of Independence, whereas the democratic form government begins with state constitutions, the Articles of Confederation, and subsequently, the U.S. constitution.
Pursuant to the DoI, Americans are endowed by their Creator with rights and liberties.
BUT
Pursuant to the constitutions, citizens surrender those rights and liberties and embrace MANDATORY CIVIC DUTIES. For example, all [male] citizens, 17-45, are the militia, and can be ordered to train, fight, and die on command. Obviously, a militia man has no right to life nor liberty. And citizens are also obligated to fund government with a share of their property. Ergo, citizens have no absolute ownership of private property.
This dichotomy fuels the mythical "sovereign citizen" movement, in which the citations that support sovereignty of the American people are confused with the citations that define the privileges of the subject citizenry. In fact, there are but two statuses in American law, sovereign and subject. And the sovereigns are in the republican form.
A small proof to show that Americans once knew what an American sovereign was:
.................................................................
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
(download available from http://gutenberg.org)
.................................................................
Likewise, to show that citizens are NOT sovereigns:
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
- - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)
CITIZEN = SUBJECT
AMERICANS = SOVEREIGN
. . .
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are SOVEREIGNS WITHOUT SUBJECTS, and have none to govern but themselves.
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns."
- - - Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793))
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremeco...
How did one change from sovereign to subject?
CONSENT, as in "consent of the governed."
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_...
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
Sound bite format:
RFOG: Sovereign, with all endowed rights (ex: natural rights, natural liberty).
DFOG: Subject, with only government privileges (ex: civil rights, political liberties)
If 97% of Americans WITHDREW CONSENT from the democratic form, the remaining 3% of civic minded public servants running the government would have no power to "govern" the 97%, only secure rights, and with only 3% of the revenue, have little to waste. THIS is why the FOUNDERS originally required volunteers / citizens to (a) own property, (b) pay taxes on it, (c) owe civic duties to the State, including a lifetime of militia duty - risking one's life and limb in SERVICE. They were certainly worthy of the title "elite" for to be the leaders, they had to be the SERVANTS of all. (That all changed in 1820s, but that's a whole nuther story.)
P.S. - since the RFOG existed BEFORE the US CON, it is definitely not a "constitutional republic."
What made us a Constitutional Republic was the way the founders set up the country. As someone else in this post suggests, reviewing the founding documents along with the Federalist & Anti-Federalist papers is required to understand the founders intent. Of course this has been squandered not only by amendments but also by our representatives setting it aside.
I agree with the other thoughts of your post.
The founders held democracies in contempt. For those looking for substantiation of this, one need only read their own words. They were learned men who often quoted Montesquieu, Locke etc. Their words still resonate in the Federalist, Anti-federalist and Constitutional convention papers. Too few people today invest their time in these worthy and enlightening records of their knowledge, intentions and powerful arguments.
Regards,
O.A.
Benjamin Franklin proves particularly prescient.
advocate is a constitutional republic, in which in-
dividual rights are guaranteed. (Our nation was an
attempt at that, but it has not been established
consistently).
.
democracy when the federal senate changed to
individual voter election rather than State Legislature
selection -- the 17th amendment -- and it may not have
been wise. . a democracy allows a majority to vote
themselves freebies, willy-nilly. . that's where we are,
these days, isn't it? -- j
.
A republic on the other hand is a form of governance where the voters vote on representatives to run the government and make the laws for them. It is supposed to blunt the majority rules problem of the democracy because it is possible for a minority of the total population could still get representation within the government. Think of it as giving the sheep a .45 in the above dinner discussion. It might still be dinner, but now it has a fighting chance.
Our founding fathers also believed in state's rights, so they established a body (the senate) to represent the state's government's wishes within the Federal government. However, I believe many progressives saw this as an impediment to socializing the country and amended the Constitution to make Senators also elected by a majority of the population of their states instead of appointed by their state's legislatures or Governors. It is easier to blind a lot of out of touch voters than a group of legislators whose job is to make sure the laws are being written well.
The United States was founded as a Constitutional Federal Democratic Republic. That means that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, our government is centralized and every citizen (who wants to) has a legal right to vote for whatever representative they feel represents them to go to Washington. This is a rather simplistic explaination, but it serves.
Load more comments...